Photography Laws in Canada

[skieur]

"If you are taking photographs in a mall, or some other privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public property, and their rent-a-cops get uppity, they can essentially make up any policy or rules they want. There are no law with regards to this, you don't have to do what they say. However, they can simply ask you to leave... if you don't, you are trespassing on their property. They can also ban you from the property, in which case, if you come back, your trespassing"from the OP


Actually, the rent-a-cops can't make up any policy or rules they want. The owner can but only within the limitations that they cannot be in conflict with other laws. In case law one tourist venue made up a rule that "The copyright of any photos taken by anyone on the property belonged to the property owner". A photographer took photos on the property and published them. The tourist venue sued and LOST. The judge basically said that the copyright belonged to the photographer, irrespective of signs to the contrary.

Moreover the onus is NOT on the photographer to get permission of the property owner to take photos. It is assumed that photos can be taken on private property UNLESS there are signs to the contrary or the photographer is approached by the owner or his representative who tells you that photos cannot be taken on the property.

Irrespective of what happens, the photographer can be fined for trespassing, but he/she still owns all copyright to photos taken.

skieur

 

[skieur]

"Common Law
Canadian common law is case law... it's very difficult to draw up a list of things that are against the law, it's more just knowing about cases... if sometime in the past, a parent sued a photographer for taking a photo of their kid without concent, and the guy was found guilty, no law is actually created, but if the same thing happens again, the judge will look back to that case and rule the same for consistancy. "

It is not quite that simple. First in law a parent can't sue a photographer for taking a photo of their kid without consent since there is NO law requiring consent. Secondly, a judge would look back to the legal reasons for any prior ruling by another judge. If the ruling has NOT been confirmed by an APPEAL court, then it would be taken with a "grain of salt" since NO judge wants his own rulings appealed.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Quote from OP "So far I haven't been able to find anything that gives me the right or denies me from going to the park and taking a photo of someone. Similarly, I haven't been able to find any common law cases in which a photographer is sued for taking photos in public. (Besides the recent one in Quebec, which falls under slightly different laws than the rest of Canada).

One friend of mine mentioned that he was taught in highschool to not take photos of children in public.. The reasoning for it is if it's a single parent and child that have moved from an abusive spouse and the fear is that if the photo some how comes into their posession it could be possible to identify where they've moved to. I haven't found any mention of this anywhere though.

I'm also looking for a regulation or statute that says that everyone is welcome onto public-owned property (like parks, city hall, etc.), specifically I want to know if a private citizen can be charged with trespassing in a public park. "


Well, your Charter Rights allows you to take pictures anywhere in public with the usual exceptions such as change rooms etc., so you cannot be sued for such a thing, unless you did something criminal during the process of taking pictures. The case in Quebec involved more harassment with a camera rather than simply taking pictures.

Your friend in high school just had board policy NOT the law passed on to him by the teacher along with the board spin on why. The reasoning is very much a "stretch" since photos of school kids can end up in school newspapers, local newspapers, and all over social media.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Great information, thanks for posting this.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think I've read about a major difference between US and Canadian copyright laws.

In the US, by most accounts, the photographer (artist) owns the copyright to any image they create. The rights can be sold or contracted to the artist's employer (staff photographer etc.).

In Canada, if a piece of art (photo etc.) is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the person or party that commissioned it and not the artist, providing payment was made. Photographers would then need specify in a contract if they wanted to retain the copyright.


I've heard some conflicting information on this...so I'm not sure what is correct.

This is particularly related to portraits and is solved by contracts that indicate that the photographer is licensing the use of the portrait for certain purposes by the client for the fee but that the photographer retains copyright.

In the employment area, if the nature of your job with a company involves taking pictures then the employer owns the copyright to the photos. If on the other hand, you were hired as a salesman and you took a great newsphoto while working, then the salesman NOT the company would own the rights to the photo. In Canada who owns the equipment used also makes a difference. If the employee used his own camera, then it is assumed that photography is not part of his job description and therefore he owns the rights to photos taken whether during work or not.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Thank you so much for posting this. It might be a good idea to print this, and keep it in the camera bag , just in case. I have been hassled a few time, and also escorted out of two places for photography. ONe being a cemetery. After reading this, I can see where Chuck got on the power trip when I questioned him about not having no photography sign.
Thanks again.

This is a work in progress, and I am no lawyer. It seems to make sense given the information I've found. Whether or not it is an accurate or complete interpretation of the laws, I have no clue. I'd like to hear more, as I've heard of a lot of photographers getting hastled by police, rent-a-cops, and private citizens, when it is nothing but prejudice. The guy with the P&S is OK, but the guy with the SLR and the zoom, he's up to no good.
Thanks for the support though.

So here's my question. If you take a picture at a concert and it shows up just showing the lights with a shadow of a person on it, and you wanted to use it for a book cover, if you don't include the person's name or when it was taken etc, could you use it without having to get a release? I have a shot I took by fluke at a concert that is just the shadow of one of the guys in the band. It's mostly the lights in the background that I loved. I wanted to use it for a novel that I wrote that I am getting published, but I also don't want to ruffle the feathers of that band since they are my favorite. What do I do???

If neither the person, nor the concert/band were identifiable in the shot then it would seem difficult for anyone to sue since "damages" to anyone's/group's reputation etc. are contingent on identification.. Moreover you can't "benefit" financially from a group on your book cover if the group is NOT identifiable. If one or both are identifiable, then it becomes a matter of whether a book cover is "editorial" or "commercial as in advertising". The first would not require a release. The second would.

 

[zombiesniper]

A brief update to the Canadina copwrite act.

Canadians Copyright Act for photographers – CAPIC – CAPIC-National